Upper House committee approves national referendum bill

Matt, I enjoy your blog, but

Matt,
I enjoy your blog, but I wanted to put out something about the age limit in the referendum bill.

It is the DPJ that supported lowering the age limit for the referendum to 18, while the LDP opposed it. The change in the Upper House bill is a product of the LDP's trying to compromise with the DPJ.

It is the DPJ that supported

It is the DPJ that supported lowering the age limit for the referendum to 18, while the LDP opposed it. The change in the Upper House bill is a product of the LDP’s trying to compromise with the DPJ.

Okay, I should have gotten the part about moving the voting age down being the DPJ's idea. I really appreciate this correction. I'm still a little confused here though.

2007/04/18 Ozawa ignoring warning signs, Takashi Oda, The Yomiuri Shimbun:

Therefore, pro-revision DPJ leaders, including Secretary General Yukio Hatoyama and Yukio Edano, chairman of the party's Research Commission on the Constitution, had tried to search for common ground with the ruling camp. The ruling coalition agreed to accept a DPJ proposal to set the voting age at 18 or older. At the final moment, the DPJ submitted a modified bill, proposing the bill cover constitutional revision and other important national issues.

2007/05/06 The constitution revision blitz, Observing Japan

To summarize, the LDP draft passed by the Lower House stipulated that the age limit for voting in a national referendum on constitution revision will be twenty, same as for other elections. The rejected DPJ draft, meanwhile, called for lowering the voting age in a revision referendum to eighteen. This issue is still under discussion as the Upper House debates the bill.

2007/03/07 国民投票法案、月内に衆院通過の方針　与党、単独採決も Asahi Shimbun:

　与党と民主党の実務者間の修正協議では、投票年齢を民主党が主張した「１８歳以上」とすることなどで大筋合意した。ただ、国民投票の対象について憲法改正に限定する与党案に対し、民主党は国政の重要事項も対象にすべきだと主張し、折り合っていなかった。

Very rough translation: The ruling party and the DPJ agreed in committee about the point the DPJ had emphasized of lowering the voting age to 18. But the ruling party did not agree about expanding the referendum to include other important governmental issues as the DPJ had requested.

I'm still confused about the timing here. Was it like this?

• LDP submits bill.
• DPJ requests voting age lowered.
• LDP agrees to do this, but doesn't do it YET.
• DPJ submits alternative proposal.
• In backdoor negotiations, LDP agrees to change their bill even more, but DPJ wants their bill passed.
• LDP still has not modified their own bill to reflect voting age change.
• LDP decides DPJ pretty intransigent, ends debate, and passes bill.
• It goes to upper house.
• Voting age is finally modified.

Is that correct? Note some articles in the media did not clarify that the idea to move the voting age to 18 was a DPJ request.

2007/04/20 Head wind for Japanese change, Hisane Masaki, Asia Times.

Although many members of his own party favor enacting a national referendum bill - and even revising the constitution - Ozawa feared that cooperating for the passage of the bill would only benefit the coalition ahead of the crucial election. In addition, the DPJ leader did not want to undermine a united front among the opposition parties against the ruling coalition in the run-up to the poll. The other, smaller opposition forces, including the Socialist and Communist parties, are vehemently opposed to any constitutional revisions. They urged the DPJ to oppose any referendum bill. The coalition's referendum bill introduced a controversial element into Japan's elections by apparently lowering the voting age for referendum from 20 to 18. If the bill passes the Diet, those who have reached the age of 18, instead of 20 at present, will officially be deemed adults - a change that could significantly alter Japanese society.

This would imply that the bill contained the provision before it reached the upper house. And it makes it sound as if it were an LDP provision. Clearly the former is an error, but is the later as well?

Also by the same writer in a different paper,
2007/04/20 Japan's March Toward Constitutional Changes, Oh My News, Hisane Masaki:

The LDP and New Komeito coalition and the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) introduced their own national referendum bills in May 2006 and attempted in vain to reconcile them. DPJ leader Ichiro Ozawa instructed his party negotiators not to budge even an inch. ... The coalition's referendum bill introduced a controversial element into Japan's elections by apparently lowering the voting age for a referendum from 20 to18. If the bill passes the Diet, those who have reached the age of 18, instead of 20 at present, will officially be deemed adults -- a change that could significantly alter Japanese society.

Here's one more place,
2007/03/20 Nat'l referendum bill unlikely to be enacted before Constitution day, Kyodo News:

The ruling coalition has compiled bills on the national referendum and Diet law amendment in order to eventually bring the voting age down to 18 from 20 for elections, and suspend Constitutional reviews at the Constitution committees at both houses for three years after the new Constitution is promulgated.

Anyway, the LDP were being really flexible here, I think. It does at least appear that Ozawa was being intransigent just for the sake of playing politics. That was a big concession to lower the voting age. And clearly the LDP were even willing to make other concessions as well.

2007/04/14 Constitution

2007/04/14 Constitution referendum bill clears Lower House, Masami Ito, The Japan Times:

The bill states that the voting age must be 18 and older. The original bill, submitted to the previous ordinary Diet, had stipulated age 20 and older. But the ruling bloc lowered the age in the revised version of the bill handed in to the Diet in March in an attempt to compromise with the DPJ, which had submitted its own version of the bill with the voting age of 18 and over.

Okay, this seems to explain the issue regarding the voting age. In a previous session the LDP submitted a bill with the age set at 20, the DPJ had submitted one with the age 18. Neither bill must have gotten very far. The session ended last December. Now, here we are in a new session. This time around, as a sort of compromise, the LDP's bill from the beginning had the age set at 18.

I think this is correct but am not sure. However, it contradicts what is being claimed at the Japan Observer which is: "This issue is still under discussion as the Upper House debates the bill."

While I really appreciate the Japan Observer correcting me in that the DPJ is responsible for pushing for the lower age, I don't think the Japan Observer is correct that the issue is still under discussion. Though clearly I could be in error myself.

Here is another article related to this:
2007/01/11 Ruling bloc to skip DPJ nod on referendum bill, The Japan Times.

[...] stories were used to

[...] stories were used to cover up or ignore other more important issues, such as the passage of the new national referendum law and the protests at Henoko Bay: [...]